{"id":912,"date":"2012-12-11T15:27:04","date_gmt":"2012-12-11T15:27:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.goodwinairport.com\/?page_id=912"},"modified":"2013-03-20T16:52:58","modified_gmt":"2013-03-20T16:52:58","slug":"introduction","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.goodwinairport.com\/?page_id=912","title":{"rendered":"Introduction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

\"InternalOn 7 September 2012 the UK government announced the creation of an independent aviation commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, to identify and report on options for maintaining the UK\u2019s status as a global aviation hub. The\u00a0commission is due to report in 2013 on whether there is a need for additional runway capacity and then subsequently on options for siting any new runway capacity.<\/p>\n

While we await the Davies commission findings the aviation industry is arguing persuasively that, with Heathrow and Gatwick both operating close to their limits, there is a shortage of runway capacity serving London and the south-east and, unless new capacity is provided, this shortage will only worsen over the coming decades threatening London\u2019s position as a world leading business and financial centre.<\/p>\n

In order for the UK to maintain its position in the north European market it is argued that London needs a hub airport and modern hub airports require at least three runways, preferably four. Heathrow, London’s current hub, is falling behind as competitor airports at Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt expand their runway capacity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 
\n 
\n 
\n 
\n 
\n 
\nThis website does not consider the need for new runway capacity since that is a matter that the Davies commission is currently assessing. We have instead worked on the assumption that the aviation industry’s case is broadly correct that with a growing population the demand for air travel will also grow and within the next 30 years or so south-east England will require a four runway hub airport with room for further expansion in the longer term.<\/p>\n

\"\"A four runway airport requires a considerable area of land, around 25 square\u00a0km is needed for the runways alone – if the runways are to be sufficiently separated to operate independently. However the impact of the airport on the surrounding community is very much more extensive. At \u00a0Heathrow the area where airport noise exceeds 57db (the\u00a0level at which the government says noise becomes “a community annoyance”)\u00a0exceeds 100 square km seriously affecting the lives of over 250,000 residents. This noise footprint is for only two runways.<\/p>\n

South-east England is a densely populated region with high land values and a site large enough for a four runway airport cannot be found without considerable resistance from the affected local communities and their political representatives. The level of community resistance means that it is unlikely that any of the existing airports serving London can be expanded to four runways; the political, social and environmental impact would be simply too great.<\/p>\n

\"\"The alternative, for an island nation like the UK, is to locate the airport offshore – a solution recently adopted at\u00a0South Korea\u2019s new Incheon Airport at Kansai Airport in Japan and Chep Lap Kok in Hong Kong. Since the early 1970s there have been several proposals for locating a new airport in the Thames estuary starting with the Maplin sands proposal on the Essex shore and later with sites nearer the centre of the estuary such as the Marinair proposal. More recently sites attached to the Kent shore have been suggested at Cliffe marshes, the Isle of Sheppey, and Lord Foster’s proposal at the Isle of Grain. Most recently Testrad has proposed an offshore site on the Kentish Flats. Further details for many of these proposals can be found from the web links on this website’s Links page.<\/p>\n

All the sites within the estuary have significant disadvantages. Every one is located in at least one internationally designated environmentally sensitive area. All the sites either interfere with shipping lanes or else are too small to provide four independent runways. Several sites also require demolition of recently constructed windfarms.\u00a0The land connected sites do not provide take off and landing over water which ought to be the principal benefit of a new offshore airport since it enables 24 hour operations maximising utilisation of the airport.<\/p>\n

Goodwin Airport located on the Goodwin sands has none of these disadvantages. It has:<\/h3>\n